Donald Trump is the President Mark IV (Read Mod Warning in OP)

oscarBravo

RIGOLO wrote: »

A bit of whatabouttery mentioning gerrymandering etc is sure to get some likes here...

It's very hard to take anything you say seriously when you post utter nonsense like this. (It's not helped by your near-total refusal to engage in actual discussion, also.)

Gerrymandering is objectively bad. Sure, some people - notably those who benefit from it - try to devise convoluted explanations for why it's perfectly fair and valid to manipulate voting districts for the explicit purpose of disadvantaging one electoral group, but just because people make excuses for appalling behaviour doesn't make that behaviour OK.

Seagulling the thread with rubbish like you've just posted is stupid and pointless. If you think gerrymandering is objectively a good thing, explain why. If you're not prepared to explain it, why are you posting here?

oscarBravo

RIGOLO wrote: »

Or if you win more states than your opponent in a constitutional federal republic then you win the election...

That's not how the electoral college works. If you're going to preach, you should make at least a token effort to get your facts straight.

batgoat

ELM327 wrote: »

I wouldn't wave an ISIS flag for any reason.
Flags are symbolic.

He tried to ban trans people from the military, actions are far more significant than holding a flag.

weisses

RIGOLO wrote: »

Or if you win more states than your opponent in a constitutional federal republic then you win the election, then the system is working as designed.

But but the commander in chief told us it wasn't a fair system ...so what is it ?

Do you actually disagree with Trump ?

RIGOLO

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not how the electoral college works. If you're going to preach, you should make at least a token effort to get your facts straight.

Yep I know how the electoral college works. My post earlier was a simplification in the interest of expediency.
One could reasonably argue that Trump winning 30 out of 50 states in a constitutional federal republic is enough to win the election and the systems is working as designed.


Electoral college is a wondrous institution, people would do well to study it and see how it has served the United States well, all the way back to how the electoral college enabled the election of Abraham Lincoln (The Republican anti-slavery ticket) to defeat John Breckenridge (the pro-slavery racist Democrat) in 1860.

Pa8301

RIGOLO wrote: »

Yep I know how the electoral college works. My post earlier was a simplification in the interest of expediency.
One could reasonably argue that Trump winning 30 out of 50 states in a constitutional federal republic is enough to win the election and the systems is working as designed.


Electoral college is a wondrous institution, people would do well to study it and see how it has served the United States well, all the way back to how the electoral college enabled the election of Abraham Lincoln (The Republican anti-slavery ticket) to defeat John Breckenridge (the pro-slavery racist Democrat) in 1860.

I think Abraham Lincoln is probably turning in his grave with the state of the Republican party now.

Dohnjoe

RIGOLO wrote: »

Yep I know how the electoral college works. My post earlier was a simplification in the interest of expediency.
One could reasonably argue that Trump winning 30 out of 50 states in a constitutional federal republic is enough to win the election and the systems is working as designed.


Electoral college is a wondrous institution, people would do well to study it and see how it has served the United States well, all the way back to how the electoral college enabled the election of Abraham Lincoln (The Republican anti-slavery ticket) to defeat John Breckenridge (the pro-slavery racist Democrat) in 1860.

"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."

- Donald Trump

Professor Moriarty

RIGOLO wrote: »

Yep I know how the electoral college works. My post earlier was a simplification in the interest of expediency.
One could reasonably argue that Trump winning 30 out of 50 states in a constitutional federal republic is enough to win the election and the systems is working as designed.


Electoral college is a wondrous institution, people would do well to study it and see how it has served the United States well, all the way back to how the electoral college enabled the election of Abraham Lincoln (The Republican anti-slavery ticket) to defeat John Breckenridge (the pro-slavery racist Democrat) in 1860.

Yes, yes, of course. That's why no other country has aopted it. Tell me, were you mistaken or telling a porkie in your last post?

Pa8301

RIGOLO wrote: »

Yep I know how the electoral college works. My post earlier was a simplification in the interest of expediency.
One could reasonably argue that Trump winning 30 out of 50 states in a constitutional federal republic is enough to win the election and the systems is working as designed.


Electoral college is a wondrous institution, people would do well to study it and see how it has served the United States well, all the way back to how the electoral college enabled the election of Abraham Lincoln (The Republican anti-slavery ticket) to defeat John Breckenridge (the pro-slavery racist Democrat) in 1860.

And you're hugely over simplifying the position of the Democrat party on slavery. The Republican party was anti-slavery. The Democrats were split on the issue on a North-South divide.

It's funny how the two parties have come pretty much 180 degrees on race since the Civil War. Even back in the 50s and 60s the Democrats were still popular in the South.

oscarBravo

RIGOLO wrote: »

Yep I know how the electoral college works. My post earlier was a simplification in the interest of expediency.

Well, that's one way of refusing to admit that you were wrong.

One could reasonably argue that Trump winning 30 out of 50 states in a constitutional federal republic is enough to win the election...

One could make that argument, sure. If Clinton had won 30 states but lost the electoral college, would you still be reasonably arguing that winning 30 states is enough to win the election?

Electoral college is a wondrous institution...

Oh, it's delightful. Just like gerrymandering.

You were about to explain why gerrymandering is objectively a good thing...?

Eric Cartman

How many here were against the electoral college before Donald trump got elected ?
How many here believed the election was in any way interfered with before trump got elected ?

I'm personally not a big fan of the electoral college but Im not sure of a way thats workable in the US that could replace it and ensure that New York and California didn't just decide every election.

Igotadose

In other Trump-related news, and why tGOP running the gummint is a bad thing, looks like Rex Tillerson's getting a huge gift from the tGOP. He might've been an embarrassment and all-around failure as SecState, but hey, Exxon'll be safe from litigation for their criminal behavior:
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/410689-trump-administration-rigging-the-game-and-your-retirement-fund-could-be-the

Summary: Exxon's being sued about misrepresenting values of assets, then having to tell the truth and their share value plummeted. Various pension funds sued, but Trump's SEC is allowing binding arbitration to triumph over class-action suits. The Roberts court has been going after class-action suits for a long time - Robert's himself made his career adjudicating against it. And the SEC is now going to all all IPO's, etc. to include a binding arbitration clause so when they go kersplat, suing will be nigh onto impossible.

This is the kind of stuff that used to be exciting when the WH and DC ran as it had in the past, would've been front page news, etc. Doesn't hardly get a blip nowadays with the consta-circus run by ringmaster Trump.

Oh, and another Mueller target has been sentenced, yet another witch caught up in the witchhunt. I've lost track how many now - 18? 20? 30? - have been convicted, and how many sentenced. This one's not directly related to the Trump campaign, apparently was caught out helping Russian bots. Oh well, too bad for him: https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/410746-calif-man-ensnared-in-mueller-probe-sentenced-to-one-year

batgoat

Eric Cartman wrote: »

How many here were against the electoral college before Donald trump got elected ?
How many here believed the election was in any way interfered with before trump got elected ?

I'm personally not a big fan of the electoral college but Im not sure of a way thats workable in the US that could replace it and ensure that New York and California didn't just decide every election.

I imagine a lot were, disenchantment with the electoral colleges isn't a new thing. In relation to interference with the election. That's now a fact.

hill16bhoy

Pa8301 wrote: »

And you're hugely over simplifying the position of the Democrat party on slavery. The Republican party was anti-slavery. The Democrats were split on the issue on a North-South divide.

It's funny how the two parties have come pretty much 180 degrees on race since the Civil War. Even back in the 50s and 60s the Democrats were still popular in the South.

It's so comical when people trot out that old line that about the Republicans being anti-slavery during the Civil War and infer it has relevance to today.

The two parties have completely traded positions.

That's why today's Republicans are literally up in arms when pro-slavery statues are removed and fight tooth and eulogise the flying of the confederate flag.

While Democrats fight to rid America of pro-slavery symbols.

And why the descendants of slavery so overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

Quin_Dub

Eric Cartman wrote: »

How many here were against the electoral college before Donald trump got elected ?
How many here believed the election was in any way interfered with before trump got elected ?

I'm personally not a big fan of the electoral college but Im not sure of a way thats workable in the US that could replace it and ensure that New York and California didn't just decide every election.

Personally I've always thought that the Electoral College was just weird.. Disenfranchises millions of voters.

Why would a GOP voter in California bother to cast a Presidential vote , or a Dem voter in California for example.. The vote will never count for anything..

In terms of reform - There are multiple possible ways

• Allocate the College votes pro-rata at the state level rather than winner takes all , so if you got 20% of the vote in a given state then they'd get 20% of the college votes from that state.
• Create a "Popular vote bounty" - Maybe re-allocate 50 College votes and give them to the winner of the popular vote

eire4

Eric Cartman wrote: »

How many here were against the electoral college before Donald trump got elected ?
How many here believed the election was in any way interfered with before trump got elected ?

I'm personally not a big fan of the electoral college but Im not sure of a way thats workable in the US that could replace it and ensure that New York and California didn't just decide every election.

Actually while California is indeed the most populous US State Texas is number 2 hardly a Democratic state to put it mildly while Florida is number 3 again very much a Republican dominated state given like Texas both state houses are Republican controlled and they have a Republican governor although one of their 2 senators is a Democrat. New York only comes in 4th. So in terms of the 4 most populous states you have 2 that are mostly Democratic and 2 that are mostly Republican. Hardly a clear advantage to one side or the other.
The US already has the senate which has immense powers to ensure that smaller states get a big say in what happens in the US. They should get rid of the electoral college which is patently undemocratic.

everlast75

Eric Cartman wrote: »

How many here were against the electoral college before Donald trump got elected?

Trump was.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

How many here believed the election was in any way interfered with before trump got elected?

Trump did.

Its funny 'cause its true! Lol

BabyCheeses

Eric Cartman wrote: »

How many here were against the electoral college before Donald trump got elected ?
How many here believed the election was in any way interfered with before trump got elected ?

I'm personally not a big fan of the electoral college but Im not sure of a way thats workable in the US that could replace it and ensure that New York and California didn't just decide every election.

Yes, generally whoever has the most votes wins. That tends to be the point.

Captain Obvious

Eric Cartman wrote: »

How many here were against the electoral college before Donald trump got elected ?
How many here believed the election was in any way interfered with before trump got elected ?

I'm personally not a big fan of the electoral college but Im not sure of a way thats workable in the US that could replace it and ensure that New York and California didn't just decide every election.

I've never seen anyone in favour of the elctoral college.


In obvious news, Director Wray has confirmed the White House limited the investigation of Kavanaugh.



https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/10/kavanaugh-fbi-probe-limit-888667

Eric Cartman

everlast75 wrote: »

Trump was.



Trump did.

Its funny 'cause its true! Lol

Trump still thinks the electoral college is biased : https://www.vox.com/2018/7/16/17576764/trump-electoral-college-putin

Democrats were against the electoral college in 2016 and in 2000 when bush won
Republicans were against is in 2008 and 2012, theres articles for each.

It seems like everyone on every side knows its broken and acknowledges it but isn't really willing to fix it.

everlast75

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Trump still thinks the electoral college is biased : https://www.vox.com/2018/7/16/17576764/trump-electoral-college-putin

Democrats were against the electoral college in 2016 and in 2000 when bush won
Republicans were against is in 2008 and 2012, theres articles for each.

It seems like everyone on every side knows its broken and acknowledges it but isn't really willing to fix it.

Who is now in position to fix it?


And don't side step the fact that Trump claimed the election was fixed so that he wouldn't win, until he won..... (by fixing the election)

TomOnBoard

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Personally I've always thought that the Electoral College was just weird.. Disenfranchises millions of voters.

Why would a GOP voter in California bother to cast a Presidential vote , or a Dem voter in California for example.. The vote will never count for anything..

In terms of reform - There are multiple possible ways

• Allocate the College votes pro-rata at the state level rather than winner takes all , so if you got 20% of the vote in a given state then they'd get 20% of the college votes from that state.
• Create a "Popular vote bounty" - Maybe re-allocate 50 College votes and give them to the winner of the popular vote

As an unintended consequence of recent events, I can see California once again pursuing a number of options to recover its democratic entitlement in Federal matters. There have been a number of attempts in the past to re-invigorate movements to seceed from the Union, and in the same way as Brexit secession from the EU, I could see an angry response gaining hold. Another option that has previously also been mooted is the breaking up of the State into 4 new states, thereby gaining 6 additional Senate seats and Electoral College votes.

A key issue here is the manner in which Federal Law continues to trump State Law on a number of issues that Californians find objectionable. For example, following the recent legalisation of Marijuana in California, continued attempts by the Customs and Border Patrol to seize product from Californians at checkpoints within 100 miles of the Mexican border will continue to anger citizens of that State. The Federal attitude to so-called sanctuary cities is also controversial, as Gun Control lobby attempts to undermine the State's attempts at Gun and Ammunition control. I'm not saying who's right or wrong; I am saying that the tension between the imposition of Federal powers in a State that regularly votes otherwise is a modern- day recipe for a West Coast Tea Party that may put Boston's to shame.

UsedToWait

Just a theory, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that some of the pro-trump accounts on here seem to be manned by more than one person.

The particular account I'm talking about seems only today to have developed a spelling problem (numerous times, so not typos) and a different turn of phrase than (s)he has had heretofore.

Eric Cartman

everlast75 wrote: »

Who is now in position to fix it?


And don't side step the fact that Trump claimed the election was fixed so that he wouldn't win, until he won..... (by fixing the election)

Im not side stepping it , all of your answers on this forum may aswell just be "I don't like trump"

https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-stratfor-emails-democrats-tampered-with-2008-election-2012-4?IR=T
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/09/acorn.fraud.claims/
Then theres the George W Bush Florida debacle etc...

Every election cycle there appears to be an attempt by both sides. John Mccain let it go, Al Gore let it go , The democrats didn't let it go this time so we still have quite a few cycles with question marks and investigations that could have been.

Im of the belief that both sides tamper with every election, maybe trump tampered harder than anyone , maybe Hillary underestimated the tampering a man without a few elections under his belt could do.

If you think the dam's weren't doing it too I think thats naive. I don't think the US has had a clean and fair election in a hundred years.

TomOnBoard

RIGOLO wrote: »

Perhaps someone should have given Hilary a history lesson in the structure of the United States of America, she may have spent less time flying east to west coast fund raising, and more time visiting and campaigning in the 'flyover states' .

This is a very valid point, and one that I'm sure haunts John Podesta and others to this day. I was actually in the Rust Belt 2 weeks before the election, and in bars and restaurants, it was noticable how 'left-out' people claimed to be. Its easy to denigrate these people as 'deplorables' etc., but what I saw were hard- working ppl who felt they had been bypassed by the 'educated elites'. There's no doubt that Trump's ppl tapped into that- it was fertile ground given HC's apparent lack of engagement in those places.

I'm sure lessons have been learned by the DNC and the 'common man/woman' won't be ignored in the same way next time. A large dose of humility was warranted and one can only hope that the hubris has been jettisoned..

StringerBell

Looking forward to seeing what the sentence is for Richard Pinedo tomorrow. He seems to have been fully cooperative with the investigation so even though he can be sentenced for up to 18 months I believe, I think the statement from the prosecution attesting to how helpful he was might save him. Up to the judge I guess

Ha just remembered the time difference! He was sentenced to 6 months.

Cooperation, and more jail time for the "witch Hunt"

Nader will for sure be even more interesting! Been given immunity.

TomOnBoard

StringerBell wrote: »

Looking forward to seeing what the sentence is for Richard Pineda tomorrow. He seems to have been fully cooperative with the investigation so even though he can be sentenced for up to 18 months I believe, I think the statement from the prosecution attesting to how helpful he was might save him. Up to the judge I guess

Ha just remembered the time difference! He was sentenced to 6 months.

PinedO....:D

Eric Cartman

StringerBell wrote: »

Looking forward to seeing what the sentence is for Richard Pinedo tomorrow. He seems to have been fully cooperative with the investigation so even though he can be sentenced for up to 18 months I believe, I think the statement from the prosecution attesting to how helpful he was might save him. Up to the judge I guess

Ha just remembered the time difference! He was sentenced to 6 months.

he ran a company that used fraudulent ID to open PayPal accounts etc.., what was his actual Link in any investigation ?

everlast75

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im not side stepping it , all of your answers on this forum may aswell just be "I don't like trump"

https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-stratfor-emails-democrats-tampered-with-2008-election-2012-4?IR=T
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/09/acorn.fraud.claims/
Then theres the George W Bush Florida debacle etc...

Every election cycle there appears to be an attempt by both sides. John Mccain let it go, Al Gore let it go , The democrats didn't let it go this time so we still have quite a few cycles with question marks and investigations that could have been.

Im of the belief that both sides tamper with every election, maybe trump tampered harder than anyone , maybe Hillary underestimated the tampering a man without a few elections under his belt could do.

If you think the dam's weren't doing it too I think thats naive. I don't think the US has had a clean and fair election in a hundred years.

Trump is in power 18 months plus.

If there was any chance the dems rigged it, surely trump would be either negligent in not 'locking her up', or else the allegation she rigged the election is nonsense.

Trump on the other hand, had that meeting...

StringerBell

TomOnBoard wrote: »

PinedO....:D

Autocorrect somehow understands Pineda but not Pinedo

New Yorker article from Dexter Filkins regarding that Russian bank and the Trump organization superb by the way and well worth a read.

There was an open investigation into contacts between Trump and Russia by the FBI counter intelligence and the New York Times agreed to a request from the FBI not to publish.

Unreal like, I'm a fan of the times but that seems a big boo boo. They have somewhat apologized for the error but still. If they had broke this before the election maybe, just maybe.

Loads of info in there about it.